Editorial: Reform

POSTED: 07/2/13 12:48 PM

Julian Romney’s proposal for electoral reform looks interesting at first glance, but a deeper analysis shows quickly that it does not change anything. The d’Hondt formula for the distribution of seats returns the same results as the system that was used during the 2010 elections whereby residual seats were allocated based on the weighted average (residual votes divided by seats won +1).

Making MPs serve at the party’s pleasure in case they won fewer votes than the quota required for a seat goes against the principle that parliamentarians vote without burden or consultation – zonder last of ruggespraak – and it is therefore probably unconstitutional.

It is also not practical: MPs with an urge to switch sides could simply remain with their faction and vote the other way.

Romney’s proposal shows that coming up with real reform – reform that works – is an uphill job. To his credit, we note that Romney has managed to formulate his idea way ahead of all those politicians that have made it their specialty to talk about electoral reform.

On the upside: there is now a thought-through plan on the table awaiting input for approval.